Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005350

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64438/2023
LP/09019/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 26th February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE STAMP

Between

SHA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P. Richardson, Counsel, instructed by Lawmatic solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E. Terrell, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 February 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, the decision of First-tier judge Young-Harry dated 18 September 2025 on the basis that it contains an error of law. The judge dismissed the appeal against the respondent’s refusal to grant his protection claim.
2. The appellant is a 27-year-old male of Bangladeshi nationality. He came to the UK in September 2021 on a student visa and claimed asylum on 21 June 2022. The respondent refused his claim on 30 November 2023.
3. The appellant’s claim was that, as a member of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”), he was in need of protection due to his political opinion and would be at risk of persecution if he returned to his home country where he had previously suffered physical violence due to his opposition to the government.
4. The judge accepted that the appellant was a member of the BNP and had suffered violence on 15 August 2016 in a clash with the Awami League (“AL”), supporters of the then government although the judge found it was an isolated incident. The judge did not accept the evidence from his friend that, as a member of the BNP, he was subject to an attack in July 2025 nor were the sur place activities of the appellant such as to bring him to the adverse attention of the authorities if returned to his home country. In addition, in light of the regime change as outlined in the Country Policy and Information Note Bangladesh: Political Situation – December 2024 (the “CPIN”) BNP members would not face serious harm or persecution at the hands of the state. In addition, if he was threatened with violence, he would be able to seek redress from the state authorities. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the appellant’s claim for asylum and humanitarian protection under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
5. The appellant appealed on 13 October 2024 on the basis that the judge had not properly considered the CPIN and the newspaper evidence demonstrating continuing systematic and widespread violence against BNP members.
6. Permission to appeal was initially refused by First-tier judge Swaney on 6 November 2025 but was subsequently granted on 3 December 2025 by Upper Tribunal judge Pickup on the basis that it was arguable the judge did not adequately consider the entirety of the CPIN or the supporting evidence suggesting continuing abuse and violence against BNP members.
7. It is worth noting that the appellant made a successful appeal against the decision of another First-tier decision in February 2025, the details of which are not relevant for the current appeal.
Initial matters
8. Mr Richardson withdrew the application to admit additional evidence pursuant to Rule 15(2)A of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal ) Rules 2008 acknowledging that it was not relevant to an error of law appeal.
9. Mr Richardson also acknowledged that an election had been held last week in Bangladesh where the BNP had won a landslide majority. Again, this election and its result are not a matter for this Tribunal as such are not relevant in considering whether the judge had made an error of law in his decision.
Submissions
10. At the outset, Mr Richardson withdrew his second ground of appeal that the judge had erred on her finding relating to internal relocation and protection on the basis that it was conceded that the appellant was no longer, following the change in government in August 2024, at the risk of persecution from the state if he returned to his home country. Mr Richardson otherwise adopted his grounds for permission to appeal.
11. On the first ground, Mr Richardson submitted that the judge failed to properly consider the country evidence. He referred to paragraph 4.1.5 of the CPIN indicating that the effectiveness of the police being undermined by “poor infrastructure, corruption and bribery” and paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3 referring to the unstable law and order situation across the country and that a number of supporters of the AL remained in place at a grass roots level in the police notwithstanding the reorganisation of the force at senior levels. In particular, Mr Richardson submitted that the previous government turned the police force into “attack dogs” and accordingly, the safety of the appellant, as a BNP supporter, would be at risk if returned to Bangladesh.
12. The remaining ground was that the judge had failed to give proper consideration to the various newspaper articles indicating systematic and widespread violence against BNP members indicated on pages 116 to 129 and 192 to 213 of the consolidated bundle. Mr Richardson acknowledged that the newspaper articles at page 214 onwards were not relevant to the appeal given that the reported incidents preceded the date of the appointment of the interim government.
13. Mr Terrell submitted that following the attack on the appellant by members of the AL he had not suffered any further violence in the subsequent years whilst the AL were in control prior to his arrival in the UK in 2022 and for that reason alone, in light of the change of government, his personal safety would not be at risk on return.
14. In terms of the CPIN this should be read as a whole and the fact that there remained corruption in the police force did not assist the appellant’s case as corrupt officials would no longer have any incentive to be loyal to the old regime given the change in regime. Mr Terrell also referred me to the Court of Appeal’s decision in MU v. The Secretary of State For The Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 812 relating to their interpretation of the CPIN in light of a BNP supporter.
15. In terms of the newspaper articles, a number of these related to criminal damage rather violence to individuals and, even in those cases, it was not always clear that the violence was politically motivated or in response to BNP attacks.
Discussion and Decision
16. The issue which I have to determine whether is whether there is an error of law in the First-tier’s tribunal decision. If I conclude there is, I need to consider whether the error requires me to set aside that decision in whole or in part.
First Ground: Failure to Properly Consider Country Evidence
17. The judge considered the CPIN in paragraphs 21 to 25:
“21. Although I accept the appellant was a member of the student wing of the BNP, I note even low-level members of the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami will not face a risk on return given the change in regime. I note given the changes in the country, according to the Country Policy and Information Note Bangladesh: Political Situation - December 2024 members and supporters of these parties do not face persecution or serious harm at the hands of the state, thus the appellant would not face a risk on return. It is for the appellant to show that his particular activities and his past treatment are such that the new interim government are likely to view him adversely. I do not find the appellant has provided evidence to show this would be the case.
22. According to the CPIN, much of the interim government includes elements of former members of the BNP. The BNP Chair was recently released from house arrest. Any arrests have been of high-level officials from the Awami League based on their past behaviour. There has been a removal of those loyal to the Awami League and a reshuffle of various institutions, such as within the police force, judges have been transferred or promoted and various other changes have occurred since the interim government was put in place.
23. I find, according to the country evidence, that the appellant whether a BNP member or not, will not face a risk of persecution or ill treatment on return to Bangladesh given the regime he claims to fear is no longer in place. I do not find there are any outstanding or ongoing criminal matters, charges or proceedings against him. I find he has failed to show that the authorities do or would have any interest in him. I do not find his sur place activities will give rise to a risk on return.
24. However, given steps are being taken to address the former behaviour of the Awami League and with the reinstatement of an active police force, I find if the appellant has concerns about safety on return or generalised violence, he can seek redress and state protection on return to Bangladesh. Any concerns the appellant has about receiving a threat from the person on WhatsApp or facing a similar attack like his friend did, I find he can seek redress from the state authorities.
25. I find in line with the CPIN (supra) that the appellant will not face persecution for a convention reason or any other reason on return to Bangladesh.”
18. The CPIN clearly has to be considered as a whole and there is always the tendency to “cherry pick” those parts which favour a particular side and ignore those parts which do not. Having reviewed the CPIN in its entirety it is clear that Bangladesh has undergone a transformative political change since August 2024. From 2009 until that time it was governed by a prime minister who was the leader of the AL and political opposition was not tolerated and those who spoke out in opposition risked their lives. In order to consolidate its power, the police force, the judiciary and local government were filled with AL loyalists.
19. The mass protests of 2024 led to the appointment of an interim government headed by a prime minister who is not allied to either the AL or BNP and who has committed to transformation change and to removing AL members in local government and in senior positions in the police force and the judiciary and the holding of free and fair elections although, as the CPIN notes, problems remain with law and order which continues to be unstable across the country and low morale and remaining bribery and corruption in the police force.
20. The BNP has issued strong statements of support for the interim government and has taken “commendable steps” to limit retributive violence by the party rank and file and expel members involved in extortion.
21. The judge correctly identifies at paragraph 11 that the burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate that he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm if returned to Bangladesh. Paragraph 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the CPIN makes it clear of the nature of the evidence required to discharge this burden:
“Leaders, members and supporters of political groups are unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from non-state and/or rogue state actors. The onus is on the person to demonstrate otherwise…. Although politically motivated violence occurs, the number of people who are affected remains low in proportion to the size of the major parties”
22. The judge’s summary of the CPIN in the above paragraphs is a fair one when looked in the context of the document as a whole. As established in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 at paragraph 2, I am required, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, to assume the judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration and the mere fact that the judge has not specifically referred to a particular paragraph in the CPIN does not mean that she has not taken that into account. No such compelling reason has been provided to me. Indeed, I do not accept Mr Richardson’s contention that there is a risk to the appellant’s safety on return based purely on continuing low morale or corruption and bribery in the police force. No reason was given to the judge as why such corruption would endanger the appellant due to his BNP membership. I accept Mr Tennell’s contention that corrupt individuals, even if appointed by the previous regime, would not have any incentive to carry out the orders of those who no longer had any influence over them.
23. The judge’s treatments of the CPIN is further strengthened by the Court of Appeal’s judgement in MU v The Secretary of State for the Home Department. This case involved the consideration of a return of a BNP member to Bangladesh and the court had to consider the CPIN in light of the Upper Tribunal’s dismissal of the respondent’s appeal. Underhill LJ concluded that the argument that the CPIN painted an equivocal picture given the reference to “unlikely” in paragraph 3.2.1 was not well founded given any uncertainty related to the risk of persecution of AL rather than BNP members. In conclusion, at paragraph 17, it was held that the change of government “wholly changed the picture in such a way that there is no reason whatever to suppose that the respondent will be at serious risk of harm if returned”.
24. Whilst this decision is not strictly binding on me given each case has to be determined on its own facts it is persuasive given its consideration of the CPIN in the context of the return of a BNP member.
25. In conclusion I consider that judge’s treatment of the CPIN was fair and made no error of law.
Revised Second Ground – Inconsistent Findings: Acceptance of BNP membership but ignoring evidence of continuing risk to BNP members
26. Mr Richardson submitted that the judge had failed to take account of the newspaper articles which demonstrated continuing violence against BNP members following the appointment of the interim government.
27. Looking at the articles that Mr Richardson directed me to they do not give a clear picture of continuing systematic and continuing violence against BNP members. Indeed, all articles are high level, give few facts and many lack clarity as to motivation behind the incidents. Nor is it clear whether any of the violence was in response to similar behaviour by the BNP as noted in the CPIN. For example, at page 119, the police said they suspect the shooting arose from a “prior enmity”. At page 192, the motivation for the violence was not clear as it had not been reported to the police. Two of the articles at pages 197 and 200 related solely to criminal damage and in both cases the perpetrators were not identified. The article at page 202 seems to be killing “on suspicion of being a mobile thief” rather than for any political reason. The article at page 206 refers to BNP leaders alleging the AL leaders carried out the attack without giving any basis for the allegation.
28. Given the paucity of information given in these reports and absent any specific submissions as to their relevance to the appellant’s case, the judge would be entitled to give them little weight in his analysis and prefer to wholly rely on the CPIN to determine whether the appellant would be at risk if returned to Bangladesh. Again, it is not an error for the judge to fail to specify every piece of evidence before him and, indeed, Volpi v Volpi makes it clear that the validity of findings of fact made by a trial judge is not aptly tested by considering where the decision presents a balanced account of the evidence.
29. Accordingly, I conclude that the judge did not err in his treatment of the newspaper articles or by failing to make express reference to them in his decision.
Notice of Decision
For the reasons set out above, there are no errors of lawin the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and I decline to set the decision aside.

Mark Stamp

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 February 2026